It appears that The Voyage of the Dawn Treader will be shot on digital cameras. The first two films were shot on traditional 35mm film stock, but the wave of the future appears to be in digital film. Cinematographer Dante Spinotti was recently interviewed, and mentioned it’s use on Narnia.
Q: Why not go with a digital camera you’d already used? Why did you decide on the Sony F23 for Public Enemies?
Spinotti : Michael [Mann] likes depth of field, images with deep focus, and that camera has a chip that’s more like 16mm that gave us that depth of focus. It’s the same reason why I chose the same camera for the film I am going into now, The Chronicles of Narnia. The depth of field works in our favor. The camera also has an advantage in the sense that it is much more elastic. You can adjust gamma curves and gain for incredible control over the image. You can also shoot much bigger energy in the sense that you can have a zoom lens and the camera can move around in a quicker way.
When it comes to Digital vs. Traditional film… there are many many films being shot digitally these days. You can even get camcorders that shoot straight to a hard drive or an SD card. Videographers are torn, as film allows you to do a lot, and can currently capture more data. Digital film has been making great strides for about 10 years or so, now, and is changing the way that movies are made in many respects.
Recent films shot digitally include: Superman Returns, Speed Racer, and Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones as well as Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.
Just look at what James Cameron is doing to see where the future of filmmaking could be going in the next few years. If it is everything it is touted to be, Avatar could be the film that breaks boundaries.
In December 2006, Cameron explained that the delay in producing the film since the 1990s had been to wait until the technology necessary to create his project was advanced enough. The director planned to create photo-realistic computer-generated characters by using motion capture animation technology, on which he had been doing work for the past 14 months. Unlike previous performance capture systems, where the digital environment is added after the actors’ motions have been captured, Cameron’s new virtual camera allows him to directly observe on a monitor how the actors’ virtual counterparts interact with the movie’s digital world in real time and adjust and direct the scenes just as if shooting live action; “It’s like a big, powerful game engine. If I want to fly through space, or change my perspective, I can. I can turn the whole scene into a living miniature and go through it on a 50 to 1 scale.” Cameron planned to continue developing the special effects for Avatar, which he hoped would be released in summer 2009. He also gave fellow directors Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson a chance to test the new technology. Spielberg and George Lucas were also able to visit the set to watch Cameron direct with the equipment.
Other technological innovations include a performance-capture stage, called The Volume, which is six times larger than previously used and an improved method of capturing facial expressions. The tool is a small individually made skull cap with a tiny camera attached to it, located in front of the actors’ face which collects information about their facial expressions and eyes, which is then transmitted to the computers. This way, Cameron intendes to transfer about 95% of the actor’s performance to their digital counterparts. Besides a real time virtual world, the team is also experimenting with a way of letting computer generated characters interact with real actors on a real, live-action set while shooting live action. (via Wikipedia)
Now, this is NOT what they’re using on Dawn Treader… but it’s a good example of what is being done with digital filmmaking. It’s something that I’m torn on, but I think it looks really great sometimes, and like seeing a push to a technology that requires less waste.
Thanks to Glumpuddle for contacting me about it.
Good find, Paul. This is especially interesting given the fact that the Hobbit movies are going to be shot on film like the Lord of the Rings movies. I am sure the average viewer will not notice a difference. What is your opinion, Paul, about the advantages and disadvantages of digital over film?
I’m not currently awake enough to write my own opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of digital over film / film over digital. All I will say at this time is that there are positives and negatives for each format. For my company, we shoot on tape in HD. For my youth group, I shoot on a Hard Drive in the same HD with 3 CMOS sensors. I can see no difference between the quality of the video that was shot on either camera. Both have extremely clear video results, in 1080p. Because of my own hand’s on experience with both digital and film, I see very little difference in the quality. More after I get some rest.
I’m uncomfortable with this. 35mm film still produces a much better-looking image to my eyes.
I agree, gP.
I am glad to see that some one else is also uncomfortable with this. I would prefer the 35mm too, compared to digital.
Wow it has been a while since I’ve posted! Just had to add my two cents on this! I am a cinematography geek, and I am thrilled to see that this film will be shot by Dante Spinotti. His work came to my attention when I was in college and “Heat” came out. He also shot one of my favorite films “The Last of the Mohicans”, again for Mann.
His shot compositions are elegant and sweeping and I think the film will, at the very least look great! Whatever he shoots on, he knows how to compose a beautiful shot and he has an amazing eye.
-Prince Caspifan
I’m not sure about digital. I guess I might be a little old fashioned, but I hate to see film get phased out. For example, digital in photography has made huge strides and looks a lot better than it used to. Have digital movies gotten to this point, too?
I’m of the belief that it has gotten to this point. But I also know that it does have a little way to go.
The funny, and ironic, thing about this, is that when a traditional film is made, on 35mm, it has to be digitized so that the effects can be added. And then it is re-printed onto film reels when it goes out to theatres, unless it is being sent to theatres that use DLP. So in the end, the footage is all made digital in the first place. Shooting it digitally allows them to skip that step in the process.
Personally, I have no personal preference with regard to digital over film or film over digital. I have qualms about both.
For one thing: Indiana Jones 4 was shot on 35mm to give it the classic Indiana Jones feel. Spielberg refused to shoot digitally, because he wanted the picture to maintain the grainy look that film creates.
I think it wise for us to wait and how the first teaser looks, before we make our final judgement on the look of the film. Afterall, like Prince Caspifan said: Dante Spinotti has been in the business for a very long time. We have no reason not to trust his judgement call.
Thanks for your responses, but here and above, Paul. I remember back in the 1990’s the debate was whether analogue audio was better than digital. It didn’t take long for technology to make it clear that digital was better. It all has to do with how much definition you can get and how good the cameras are. If you read the Spinotti interview, he makes the point that cameras have improved significantly in recent years. And your comment, Paul, about having to transfer to digital and then back to film is also important. For theaters that now have digital projectors, the benefits of a movie shot in digital are even greater.
Like you said, when the teasers and trailers start coming out, we should have a pretty good idea.
Excuse My last comment It makes no sense because I messed up when copying it out of Word. So here is a resubmission of my comment……
As a film student, I have a strong opinion in this matter. I have always swayed towards traditional film to shoot movies. I totally disagree with the idea of shooting with digital. On top of that they are shooting in on the Sony F23 which I totally 110% disagree with. The Sony F23 camera shoots full HD 1920X1080 which is standard today for most consumers as being very good quality but when it comes down to it, it just doesn’t cut it for theater presentation. Most movie theaters project their films either on 35mm prints, 2k, or 4k digital projection systems. 2k projection systems project at 2048×1556 which is quite a quality jump in video resolution from 1080p and 4k projection systems which are now very common in most theaters present 4096×2160 video resolution. This is almost 4 times the quality of HD 1080p. So if you were to watch this film in digital projection, you would notice a loss of video quality because the recorded resolution is a 1/4 of the size of the actual screen at the movie theater. Now if they wanted to still stick with digital to retain that depth of field, they should shoot it on the RED One camera which has been shown to be successful in the films Angels & Demons, Knowing, and Night at the Museum 2. The camera shoots full 4k video and provides a perfect “film look” while still retaining a digital format, and you can pretty much have whatever type of dept of field you want. Plus on top of that Red, the company who makes the Red One camera also coming out soon with newer models of their cameras which support up to 28k video or 28000×9334 pixels. But if I were the cinematographer of the film I would still shoot full 35mm film stock because when it comes down to it, there is no such thing as pixels in film.
I just tried to watch Voyage of the Dawn Treader and couldn’t even get through it. Part of that was simply the fact that Eustace is one of the most annoying characters in the history of literature and cinema (I should have known better than to think I’d enjoy this movie when it’s by far my least favorite book in the series). But also, in large part the reason I really disliked this movie was the cinematography. I hate the fact that it was shot digitally. It lacked the richness of 35mm that the first two films used so well. In fact, when the menu of the blu ray came up showing clips from the film I thought it was a commercial for a video game. I was very disappointed to find out that that was the way the entire film looked. Maybe I’m just old fashioned, but I hate the film industry’s rush to digital technology, which in my opinion will never look as rich or cinematic as film. I’m just glad that there are DPs like Wally Pfister who still insist on shooting beautiful movies on 35 that look like movies and not video games.
PS The Hobbit is shooting on the Red Epic (and I’m terrified)
It was Dante Spinotti’s choice to use Red for Dawn Treader. Personally, I think it looks fantastic. Dante Spinotti is one of the best DPs in film. Eustace goes through quite a change in the film and the book (comes a bit faster in the film, though).
As far as The Hobbit, they’re not just shooting digital, but they’re also shooting at 60 FPS, which is double what every film has shot in for the last 90 years. Peter Jackson said that even the most staunch of film fans have been converted to believing that digital has come of age by watching the dailies of The Hobbit. He’s made believers of everyone. Plus, he’s shooting in 3D, and he said that they’ve sat through hours of 3D at 60 FPS, and no one has had the typical eye-strain that tends to come with 3D.